A lawsuit can start with a strong claim and still end in dismissal if it is not prosecuted diligently.

Recent Alberta decisions continue to reinforce a simple reality: parties who commence litigation must actively move it forward. Courts are increasingly unwilling to allow claims to languish for years while parties exchange scheduling emails, discuss future steps, or simply allow matters to sit dormant.

A recent case I worked on illustrates the point. The underlying dispute was straightforward. There was nothing complex about it. Yet more than a decade after the action was commenced, critical procedural steps remained outstanding, trial had not been set, and there was no end in sight. 

While every case turns on its own facts, the larger lesson has broad application. 

Intentions Do Not Advance Litigation

One of the recurring themes in Alberta delay jurisprudence is the difference between taking a step and talking about taking a step.

Parties often point to emails discussing hearing dates, proposed schedules, contemplated applications, or future procedural steps. But courts consistently focus on substance rather than intention. The question is not whether the parties hoped to move the matter forward. The question is whether they actually did.

If no evidence is exchanged, no issues are narrowed, and no concrete progress is made toward resolution, the litigation may be viewed as static regardless of ongoing correspondence between counsel.

The Plaintiff Still Drives the Bus

Another recurring principle is that the party advancing the claim bears primary responsibility for moving it forward.

Defendants must not obstruct litigation., but they are generally not required to prosecute the plaintiff's case for them.

Courts repeatedly emphasize that plaintiffs cannot justify years of inactivity by pointing to a defendant's failure to take initiative. The obligation to move a claim toward adjudication remains with the party seeking relief.

For businesses pursuing claims, this is an important reminder. A strong legal position does not eliminate the need for disciplined project management.

Delay Is About More Than Procedure

Alberta appellate decisions describe litigation delay as harmful to litigants, harmful to the justice system, and harmful to public confidence in the rule of law.

The concern is practical. Memories fade. Documents disappear. Witnesses retire, relocate, or become unavailable. Corporate personnel turn over. Records become harder to locate and more expensive to reconstruct. Old records may no longer be available under document retention policies. 

As time passes, the quality of the evidence deteriorates. That is why Alberta's Rules of Court contain mandatory and discretionary mechanisms designed to eliminate stale litigation. On application a court must dismiss an action in which no significant step has been taken in a three-year period (subject to certain exceptions!). Alternatively, the court may dismiss an action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, for instance: failing to advance a simple debt claim to trial for over a decade could fit the test. 

The New Judicial Environment

The Alberta Court of King's Bench has also signaled a broader institutional commitment to moving civil matters more quickly.

Recent initiatives emphasize litigation planning and establishing a path to trial at an early stage. The underlying expectation is clear: civil actions should progress efficiently toward resolution, not remain unresolved for a decade or more.

That expectation is increasingly influencing how courts assess delay applications. What might once have been tolerated is now more likely to attract judicial scrutiny.

Key Takeaways

Treat litigation like a business project.
Claims require active project management. Regular status reviews, milestones, accountability, and timelines matter.

Activity does always equal progress.
Emails, discussions, and scheduling efforts may create motion, but they do not necessarily create a significant advancement.

Build a path to resolution early.
Whether the goal is settlement, summary judgment, or trial, parties should identify and pursue a clear route forward. (It is just as important to periodically ask whether the situation has changed and so should the intended route, but that's another topic).  

Monitor limitation-style deadlines.
Certain delay rules operate with little flexibility. Waiting until the deadline arrives may already be too late.

Recognize that old claims become harder to prove and defend.
Every year of delay increases litigation risk for both sides.

Final Thought

In Alberta courts, delay is not viewed as a mere procedural inconvenience.

In some cases, delay becomes the deciding issue.